I haven't been entirely happy with the way things have been moderated of late. It seems that whenever something reasonably moderable is posted, a bit of overbearing zealotry converges. Unfortunately, this is frequently directed at posts whose only fault is that they are directed negatively at the mods. What I would like to see is:
1. A list of all current moderators
2. A list of voted-on objective criteria for what makes a post moderable
3. A function that requires a message to be sent to the moderatee explaining which criteria he or she violated
Shall we propose a list for public vote?
~RC
I've recently started moderating another site I frequent, fortunately with a far smaller userbase. I would actually like to find out what exactly constitutes a post that needs moderating. I realise that there is a degree of common sense needed. But, I'm curious as to how these things are done by others.
I've never really had any problems with any of my posts being moderated before, anywhere. However, I don't post here, anywhere near as often as some people and I would like to also see what sort of qauntity of posts need moderating, per week, say.
Jim
Currently the moderators are:
Chrismo
Russ
mwmiller
Rhymester
T1000
Flash
wWarrior
UncleAdam
Vaknso
Tony
As far as I know this is the complete list of moderators. If there have been any additions or deletions I'm not aware of them.
<Added with edit>
The following section is my own interpretation of the purpose of the forum and the role the moderators.
-------
The forum is meant to be a place where all members can have discussions, express opinions, ask questions and in general enjoy communicating with each other.
MODERATION
Be aware that this is not a free speech forum. It is moderated.
The moderators do not have the capability to edit or alter your post in any way.
They can only remove a post.
Your post can be removed for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:
profanity, vulgarity or unacceptable language.
a personal attack against an individual or group.
flaming or an attempt to start a flame war.
blank or empty posts.
spam or junk posts that offer nothing to the subject being discussed in a thread.
I hope this helps to answer some of your questions.
regards, Marc
Originally posted by mwmillerthis was added to remove posts with only smiling faces. Not eliminate posts from people who have a 'different' way of expressing themselves. Of late too many posts have been removed using this clause not in the spirit it was intended.
Currently the moderators are:
spam or junk posts that offer nothing to the subject being discussed in a thread.
I hope this helps to answer some of your questions.
regards, Marc
Originally posted by royalchickenRegulate the definition of:
What would you suggest for criteria, if any?
"spam or junk posts that offer nothing to the subject being discussed in a thread."
Too broad and open to movement from the spirit it was originally written.
Originally posted by mwmillerThank you for the list. I think in general the moderators do a good job. I would, however, like to see a clear set of rules for posts, as the ones you list, while generally good, are rather subjective in nature.
Currently the moderators are:
Chrismo
Russ
mwmiller
Rhymester
T1000
Flash
wWarrior
UncleAdam
Vaknso
Tony
As far as I know this is the complete list of moderators. If there have been any additions or deletions I'm not aware of them.
<Added with edit>
The following section is my own interpretation of the purpose of the forum and the role ...[text shortened]... g discussed in a thread.
I hope this helps to answer some of your questions.
regards, Marc
The last is not directed at you necessarily, but rather at the whole site. What can we develop together?
what exactly qualifies as "flaming"?
what exactly qualifies as "spamming"?
Seems to me, the definitions are subject to interpretation by individual. It doesnt seem that there will ever be a perfect governing body for this. It just depends on who reads it, and how they interpret the post.
Do the Mod's confer with each other before they delete posts?
some VERY amusing posts have been deleted. They were probably taken out of context, or the intended tone was not established, OR we are just not allowed to have "colorful" conversations anymore.
play nice,
Jonathan